spesperardua

Someone once expressed to me that they could not be good for someone if they did not feel good about themselves.  In a broad sense this made some sense but, in an individual setting, I found it somewhat shocking as it flew in the face of all that I had been brought up to believe. “It is in giving that we receive”, was the biblical quote burned into me. Nonetheless, I tried not to be instantly dismissive of this, to me, new approach.

Time passed and it was in that interlude that the worshiped false god of narcissism became exposed. It fell for me like Saddam’s statue in Baghdad, torn from its foundation by forces more powerful in the hands of a coalition of everyday people who wanted to live away from someone so focused on himself. They needed each other to effect change. It was thus the case too in my life.

The person who explained the belief to me became ever more self-indulgent and dysfunctional, all the while supported by the well-meaning kindness of friends who had to be fed distortions of truth to maintain their sympathy. In short, it led to a form of madness. Everything became sour. Blame had to be laid at others’ feet – colleagues, family and those not meeting required ‘needs’.

The whole industry supporting the ‘me first’ philosophy was mobilized. The tributaries include counselors, psychologists, and authors of self-help books. There are undoubtedly many fine examples of all these three in the full spectrum of practitioners. However, for the first two, there is a clear conflict of interest for the unscrupulous. Why ‘cure’ a problem if that leaves you without an income? In all three cases, practitioners of dubious quality appear to project their own experience as being directly relevant to others. A patient or reader being honest with themselves will be able to deduce whether this is the case of not. Those with ‘an axe to grind’ or who find themselves in an emotional pit can be easily exploited by a comforting word and a ‘plan for success’ that merely isolates them and leads them down a path of increasing despair.

Therefore despite the offer to adhere to the ‘me first’ doctrine, I reject it wholeheartedly. I do believe that, “it is in giving that we receive.” The passage continues, “and it is in dying that we are born into eternal life”. The religious consider this as a path to heaven. Perhaps it is also though a recognition that kindness and giving are building blocks to real joy, comfort and rescue in humanity, and that these memories are recorded in minds and souls and endure forever. In other words practitioners of these traits live eternally.

The web is liberating and relatively free! Or is it?

Previously mute Individuals can express themselves and be heard. But, is it also isolating? Is it addictive? Could it be used to incite?

The answer to the last question seems to be yes from evidence at home and abroad. Think how quickly information and disinformation spread today. In times of economic distress, organizing “resistance” to policy is one thing, but what when there is no change from the ‘ruling classes’ or institutions? What when the ‘facts’ are plain wrong? How to keep the discourse productive?

In a well-educated society this is easier than one where it is easier to incite with hatred and jealousy. There is a perception that there is more to lose than gain for the majority if socially acceptable behaviour is discarded.

The key word is education. it has long been accepted that economic growth and stability requires an educated society. The web has made this even more an imperative. There is a race on in less developed countries with unstable, oppressive governments to educate, lest the odd opposite twins born of the web – isolationism and organization – conspire to produce danger and revolution rather than growth and evolution.

The hidden cost of the web may be found in a greater need for education in its broadest sense – and globally.

The visit overseas had been rushed but, somehow, there was the most spare time in the airport departure lounge – beyond immigration. Perhaps, a positive from all the anti-terrorism measures is the onset of enforced early arrival at airports.

Obsessive shoppers will never have enough time to spend on the activity but, for others, there is more time to reflect on purchases than in the normal rush from one place to another. Such was the case in this instance.

Life at home was not good. The promise of eternal happiness in matrimony had evaporated pretty much on the first day after the wedding. The descent from the peak of such lofty dreams had taken almost twenty years. Perhaps it was a basic incompatibility; maybe growing mistrust. One party though certainly wanted to break through in some way – to communicate – if not in words, then metaphorically.

The duty free shops have few items of expression for sale. Much of the merchandise is intended to offer a ‘deal’ where the non-payment of tax is seductive. Little attention seems to be paid to the fact that the underlying price is substantially marked up. In some cases, electronics can be cheaper outside than on the higher price with no tax.

This may have been the case with the glass carving that caught the eye. But the image overcame such concern. There were two birds on a log. The larger one, its wings outstretched, protecting and sheltering the smaller one. It was perfect. However wrong the intentions may be perceived to be, the image perfectly represented the feelings of love and affection that were at once felt but also missing in the marriage, from one party at least. The figure, touched the soul. When this happens there is a connection to the divine in whatever form one may feel that takes.

Arriving home, the gift was presented to what seemed a ritualistic form of gratitude. Its home became a window sill in the small condominium master bedroom. It lay in front of a window blind at night. In the summer, the heat dictated that the window stayed open so, perhaps, it was no surprise that the glass was brushed to the floor within days. The small bird broke from the log and, with that, from the protection of the larger bird. It was as if it sought its own life away. The metaphor of the expression intended to be communicated was over but perhaps a new one was created. The small bird was perhaps free; the larger one was anchored still to the log – the home.

A different home. The small bird was not physically there just as the partner was not physically there having moved to another bedroom. The log home, just like the real one, became less complete. As in real life, the larger bird stayed in place but the home now became a jail. There was no love, no partner. Stuck to a log. Some days later, the wind blew again and the glass fell again. This time the larger bird detached from the log. The image of love and protection was now completely broken.

Perhaps this should have been cause for joy, for both birds were now free. And perhaps it will be. But the emotion contained in the small glass carving was intended for consumption not destruction.

As might be expected divorce followed. Joy has not returned but then there was a long, multi-year march down away from it. There is a strange comfort though that the metaphor of love was broken up by an outside wind. Was there a divine message or source of comfort that this was the natural way of things in this case? Given that one partner did not comprehend the message of the figure, perhaps it was a vehicle to bring an element of peace to the other – that there was understanding somewhere out there and that one is not alone.